George Packer in the New Yorker is the latest to chronicle (and it really is an excellent piece) the hive of obstruction and special interest money that is the Senate.
Just Blow It Up
by John Cole| 46 Comments
This post is in: Excellent Links, Politics, Fucked-up-edness
General Stuck
the south will rise again. no point letting anything happen till then, if you have the power to stop it.
Napoleon
I printed that out and will read it sometime between now and the end of the weekend (maybe now, its sitting next to me as I take in the outdoors). Packer is one of those people that 95% of the time is great, but because of something like his position on the wars can really want to make you sucker punch him other times.
PaulW
they need to pass an amendment that will separate the duties of Congress: The Senate gets to confirm executive and judicial nominations, vote on treaties, handle military oversight, and oversee foreign issues; The House gets to handle all domestic and budget issues. The only times both houses of Congress vote on the same things will be joint resolutions, declarations of war, and matters of impeachment.
If we take the Senate out of domestic and budget issues, we ought to get more things done more quickly.
beltane
Sadly, the historical precedent is not encouraging. For nearly 500 years after it was rendered obsolete, right up to the point where the Visigoths were sacking the city, the Roman senate continued on with that corrupt, influence-peddling thing that senates do so well. Emperors and presidents come and go, but the rich old gentleman’s club chugs on and on…
Tonal Crow
@PaulW: Na. No amendments are needed. Art.I s.5 cl.2 grants the Senate the power to make its own rules. It could vote today — by a simple majority — to limit or abolish the filibuster, which is obstructionism’s crux. And the courts would very likely hold that any suit challenging such a vote fails for lack of standing and/or as a political question.
The only thing stopping filibuster reform is Senators’ lack of will.
Tom Hilton
@beltane: The difference, of course, is that now we have Visigoths in the Senate.
El Tiburon
We know what they are, it’s just the price we are haggling over.
This is the one issue I would like to see the Firebaggers, the Teabaggers*, the Fagbaggers, the Marvin Hagglers, all of us get together and go on Strike (or Galt, whatever) until these whores are tossed out or the rules changed.
*I understand many don’t want the status quo changed. Or what we on the left consider special interests they consider the path to freedom and Wolverines Forever!
burnspbesq
From The Federalist No. 62:
Somehow, I don’t think Hamilton or Madison ever envisioned the Senate being quite as injurious as it is now.
Jeff
Just blow it up and replace it with… what, exactly? How would we get anything that wasn’t a Rich Guys Club when they control the media as well as the legislature?
fasteddie9318
@Jeff:
Who says it needs to be replaced at all? The UK does alright even though its House of Lords doesn’t really do anything, and that country has been debating the idea of taking even more power away from that body for a few years now.
JR
Jeff- why replace it at all?
When the Electoral College deadlocks, the president is chosen by the House. On those votes, the House doesn’t vote as individual members. The House votes by state delegation.
Why not have the House do the same for nominations, treaty ratifications, impeachments, etc.? It preserves that touch of federalism without the slug of pomposity and self-aggrandizement that comes with the Upper House.
Count me as a die-hard Unicameralist.
Keith G
@Tom Hilton: Actually, no. A real Visigoth popping into the Senate for a quick hello would make Mitch McConnell et al soil their depends.
@beltane: Beat me too it. Our republic is lead by feckless men who are put in power by people who watch America Got Talent and by their Home furnishing as Walmart.
It’s pretty well over for us.
gnomedad
OT: Why use free email service with a zillion features when you can pay $40 a year to Michael Reagan?
burnspbesq
Wow. You know it’s really gotten out of hand when Jonathan Chait is shrill.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76713/the-wsj-edit-page-discovers-market-failure?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=9ed066c06e-TNR_Politics_080210&utm_medium=email
Perry Como
@PaulW: Two words: Speaker Boehner.
burnspbesq
@gnomedad:
Oh, so you think there are no externalities associated with making Google even richer and more powerful than it already is? That’s what you’re saying when you say gmail is “free.”
News flash: NOTHING is free. Some vendors are more creative than others in the way they make you pay.
MikeJ
“Just blow it up.” They say in England the last person to enter Parliament with a workable plan was Guy Fawkes.
gnomedad
@burnspbesq:
Jeebus, get a grip. I know about TANSTAAFL, okay? Not my point at all.
Wannabe Speechwriter
A functioning democracy needs an institution like the Senate to survive!
Except the United Kingdom
and Canada
and New Zealand
and Spain
and Japan
and Norway
and Germany
and Taiwan
and Sweden
and South Korea
and…well you fill in the blank…
Tonal Crow
@burnspbesq:
Ditto that. I find it difficult to believe that millions of people trade vast amounts of private information for Gmail’s “free” service.
Tonal Crow
@Wannabe Speechwriter: I dunno. I think America’s an exception in this realm, and that we have too many crazies to survive with a unicameral national legislature.
MikeJ
@Wannabe Speechwriter: Have you heard of The Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled?
However, the Commons can override the Lords.
General Stuck
@Wannabe Speechwriter:
If you didn’t have a senate in this country to slow stuff down and give the minority a say, and only a single majoritarian body like the House, it would be total chaos that would make the current abuse of senate rules look like a tea party, so to speak. You might be able to get away with it in more ideologically homogeneous countries such as western Europe, but not here with the divide we have.
Every couple or four years the laws from the previous 2 or 4 years would get repealed and we might as well just get about a civil war to settle things, though that might happen regardless. Until someone comes up with a better way than corrections at the ballot box for obstructionists, we are stuck with it. And there really is no reform other than the current 60 vote supermajority we have. Anything less than that and the minority would not participate, because they would have no power. And powerless people sooner or later will pick up a gun. History teaches us that/
Mark S.
Suuuuuuure. Corporations spend millions on these guys because they just love democracy so goddamn much.
Assistant crack whore trainees have more self-awareness than these guys.
MikeJ
@Mark S.: So what he’s saying is that the private sector is incredibly bad at allocating efficient use of their money. Sounds odd coming from a republican, or perfectly sane for anybody who has ever worked for a big company.
Litlebritdifrnt
@fasteddie9318:
This is what always confused me when I arrived over here. A completely and utterly fucked up form of government. Screw the “checks and balances” that the founders thought they were putting in. What they basically did was put in a system where nothing gets done, at least in the UK you have a majority party (okay right now it is squiffy) with a Prime Minister who leads the majority they pass the laws that they deem fit and it is done. I have never understood the rationale of having a house and senate of one party (or perhaps of two parties) and a POTUS of another. I mean what the fuck did they expect could get accomplished in that clusterfuck? I propose that whoever wins the house and senate gets to choose POTUS. But then the American electorate is so screwed up it will never happen. Our party isn’t behaving left enough so we’re going to vote for the right or not vote at all. Christ we are doomed.
Tonal Crow
@General Stuck:
Doesn’t non-Speaker Boner participate rather vigorously in the House? And without drawing a gun? Also, Mitch McConnell is not going to pick up a gun, except possibly to stick it into his rectum.
Litlebritdifrnt
@General Stuck:
Scuse me but if there is an election and the majority of the people vote in a particular party then why the fuck does the minority get a say? The majority has spoken, they have chosen the platform of the majority party, should not then the majority party be able to put their policies into action? After all the majority have voted for those policies. Has everyone forgotten the past however many years when the Republicans drove through their idiotic policies with absolutely no care for the minority view. Why do we have to be a nicer and kinder party? Fuck that.
Wannabe Speechwriter
@Tonal Crow: Every country has their crazies. Look at the British National Party in the UK and, to a lesser degree, the Left Party in Germany. Also, that is the risk you take with any democracy-that the crazies will take over and end the whole experiment. Weimar Germany had a separation of powers and that didn’t stop the Nazis from taking over. Institutional barriers have always proven inadequate toward fanatics.
One argument I hear from many on the left is if we reformed the Senate, when the GOP eventually take over they’ll move us back to the Dark Ages. Most people respond by pointing out how once a major reform is passed it is impossible to repeal. However, I will contend with this-so what? If the American people want Social Security repealed, they should elect a government to do that. Outside of some inalienable principals-civil liberties, fair and open elections-a government has to be able to enact what ever agenda it was elected to enact.
The problem with the Senate is more than filibusters and holds. The first is how the Senate is drawn. When people from Wyoming get 70 times more representation than people from California, policies are going to help people in Wyoming more than they help people from California (I’m also looking at you overrepresented moochers in West Virginia! jk). As the Senate is set up, states that are more rural, more white, and better off economically get more importance than the rest of nation. By this, you can’t have a truly national agenda.
The second problem is it provides another layer between the people and their leaders. In the UK or Canada, if you’re angry with the government, you take it out on your MP. There is a direct line between you and the government. In our system, you have a Congressperson and 2 Senators. They can be from different parties and hold different views. You may live in the city but your Senator could be from the rural parts of the state and vice versa. Even if you got “one person, one vote,” you still would have this problem. The voter having several people to yell at makes easier for elected leaders to shift the blame elsewhere. You see this in many state legislatures.
For any democracy to function, you need a clear line between the voter and the elected official. If I was rewriting the Constitution, I would have it that you have the Presidency and the House of Representatives, both voted on every 4 years. The Presidential election would be based on the national popular vote (territories included) and would be an instant run-off election. The house would represent all US states and territories and House districts would be no larger than 200,000 people. The House would also be IR election. The President would be allowed to appoint who they please to various government agencies. Laws, treaties and court appointments would require a majority vote by the House. 55% of House members could call for a special election of either the House or the Presidency to elect new members to fill out the remainder of the term of either the House or the Presidency. The line of Presidential succession would be chosen by the President with regards to his cabinet and would have no members of the house in the line of succession. There would be no term limits. Also, IR elections would abolish the need for primaries.
Would there be problems with this system? You bet. However, I feel this impossible to implement idea would make the the government more understandable and more accountable to the general public. Anyone else have any ideas on how to fix the system?
liberal
@Wannabe Speechwriter:
Of course, this is THE problem with the Senate; the others are negligible in comparison.
As far as protecting “the minority” via supermajoritarian requirements, no one ever offers a good reason why rural whites are in dire need of protection.
General Stuck
@Litlebritdifrnt: I can see why you feel that way coming from Great Britain where it’s different and the ruling party pretty much calls the shots.
We are different in that we have a southern half of our country having a huge grievance at having to follow a constitution and it’s principles they largely have never agreed with, and didn’t have that much input in creating. Especially the deep south.
We are like Martians and Venusians in our world view and what government should be about and what it shouldn’t be about. The founders wisely recognized that and put in place a system of checks and balances and separated government, and created the senate for the express purpose of cooling down the passions that were certain to exist over this great chasm of belief. The price we pay is slowness of change.
The majority does get it’s way most of the time, as HCR and other laws passed like the stimulus would not have been passed if that weren’t true. The minority got a lot of inclusion in the final product, but those final bills would never have even been considered if the wingers were in power.
IMO, we would never have lasted this long without those elements the founders gave us, as we are really two countries and peoples mostly not meant to live under the same roof. And one of those peoples is prone to violence and repression, even now in the 21st century.
Mark S.
@MikeJ:
I’m not surprised Lamar said that; otherwise he would be admitting that they take bribes. And I think spending money on Congress is probably the most efficient thing corporations do. If you spend a couple million and get a tax break that saves you billions, you can’t beat that.
@General Stuck:
Pish posh. If you had 46 seats would you just give up? All you’d have to do is get a couple Liebermans and Nelsons over to your side. If you only have 40 seats you can’t, but you shouldn’t be bitching if you have that few seats.
RJ
Can anyone explain to me why Lamar Alexander needs `an office of 50 people’?
How many staff are senators allowed? Unless 45 of these are volunteer hacks who do a few hours a week, it sounds incredible that a single representative would need that many staff.
General Stuck
@Mark S.:
Lowering the threshold might work, if you could get the minority to sign on to changing it within the rules. Though it would likely have a start date several years into the future, to where it could be either party that would first benefit from it.
There has been, and are proposals in the senate along those lines, but doing it by breaking the rules would not work for either party. Harry Reid is just posturing when he threatens to do it this way. He would have to break all the other rules if he did it this way to keep the wingers from using them to also block everything,. or slow business down to the degree things would come to a halt.
JR
You Senate defenders realize you’re actually equating the filibuster with the Republic’s very survival, don’t you? And you do realize that such a position is completely asinine, right?
Has comity disappeared as a moderating force? How about an independent judiciary? Moral and ethical compulsions? The concept of a “loyal opposition”? Are none of these possible in America as you see it? Would the nation have truly collapsed if racist Southerners couldn’t block the Civil Rights Act for two decades?
General Stuck
@JR: You know better than the founders? Sorry, I don’t think so.
Suffern ACE
@Litlebritdifrnt: They thought that if they said, “No Parties or Factions, bad, bad, bad” that no parties would form. They also figured that the people would give deference to their social betters and only elect thoughtful people, like themselves, well schooled, literate, and wise to the ways of the world. They figured being wise would be an actual qualification for office that people would respond to! They really didn’t understand us very well.
Mark S.
@General Stuck:
For heavens sake, the Founders had nothing to do with the filibuster. The first Senate had a rule to end debate and the first filibuster wasn’t until 1841.
RJ
@General Stuck: Based on your response to JR, perhaps you can explain this to me –
a) why is it assumed that the founders knew best, particularly in light of points like their support of slavery?
b) why is (part of) America obsessed with living the founders’ vision? To me, this is like a kid wanting to be a painter but becoming a doctor because their parents wanted them to, and then being miserable all their working life. If modern America wants to break with the founders’ intentions, why is that in itself a bad thing?
General Stuck
@RJ: I just said I trusted the founders more than JR, and I will add you to the list.
The answer to your question is one that every American gets to answer for his or her self. Mine is that they got it right. If there gets to be a lot more who believe as you do, and there won’t be, then maybe you can get it changed. Until then, you can blog about it, but that’s about it.
Mark S.
Uh-oh, Stuck, you’re getting double-teamed by RJ and JR, which makes me think of this.
General Stuck
@Mark S.: The founders wanted to create a body that operated by unanimous consent, as Madison put it, “as a cooling saucer to mitigate the passions of the peoples House.” They gave the senate plenary power to make it’s own rules, that are by extension constitutional, unless they violated other provisions of the constitution. And the senate made those rules, including the cloture rule etc… or standing rules of the senate.
edit – and even if they ditched the cloture rule without consent of the minority, all the other rules, or most of them, would have to be ditched as well, because the minority would use those to also obstruct the senate.
General Stuck
@Mark S.: Lol. Jekyl and Hyde maybe.
RJ
@General Stuck:
Charming.
Okay, but if you have a majority of senators representing a majority of Americans, and they want it changed? Do they just get to blog about it? Why do they (and the policies their millions of supporters voted for) get to be held hostage by a minority – particularly a minority that actually has no interest in improving bills, but only blocking them?
If the GOP were being a loyal opposition and making worthwhile contributions to the policy debate, then no one would need to consider filibuster reform.
General Stuck
@RJ:
I didn’t say the current GOP is the “loyal opposition” and firmly believe they are not. They are clearly abusing senate rules concerning minority rights. There is a remedy and that is at the ballot box, but it seems a lot of Americans are not all that unhappy with their obstruction, but dems have to find a way to message the problem in a forceful and consistent way, and we know they are not very good at that and will receive no help from our clown press.
Filibuster reform is possible, but unless it is done through regular order, and that means a 2/3 majority vote, then it won’t happen. One way I mentioned earlier is to have the reforms not take place for several years when no one will know who will run the senate. The only other way is to do it by essentially breaking the rules to change a rule.
I agree the current situation is untenable, but the options are limited and the wingers won’t stop until the voters punish them for their abuses. And it doesn’t seem like that will happen anytime soon. Dems have still passed some landmark legislation, though less than ideal, is still fiercely opposed by the right. So it isn’t being completely stopped, the dem agenda.
Tonal Crow
@Wannabe Speechwriter: You have some interesting ideas, which will take some time for me to digest. I’d point out, however, that instant-runoff voting is a bad idea. It is not unlikely to produce a paradox in which candidate A wins if she receives N first-place votes, but loses if she receives N+1 first-place votes. See http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021102/bob8.asp or http://rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html for more on this. Also, it’s not generally practical to hand-audit IRV elections, which means that whoever controls the tabulators will have the power to determine the outcome, and that she’ll be unlikely to be caught if she exercises that power.